Topic: Stag Night
Finally got around to seeing this Ghost Series entry. Not bad, but it just doesn't quite deliver the goods needed to compare with the films that clearly inspired it.
STAG NIGHT is quite obviously a remake of RAW MEAT (Brit. '72), right down to location, ad campaign, and design of the cannibals, their eyes, hair, outfits, the whole frickin' box'n dice. In a more contemporary comparison, however, the film is kind of like THE HILLS HAVE EYES in a subway... minus everything that made HILLS such a shuddering good view.
Weak Points
The soundtrack.
In a horror film, a great soundtrack is often as important as character portrayals, and worth investing some serious coin into. Even in a crap film like CARVER, a really cool and catchy version of Turkey in The Straw, sent it out of the starting gate like a bullet laced with 100-percent pure attitude and mood. Alas.. in Stage Night there is not a single stretch, beat, or chord of music that strikes you at any time. It's a totally mundane and forgettable score that adds nothing at any point.
Camera work / action editing
You know... I've just about had it with that hand-held, jittery & shifting side to side camera work that is suppose to..... I don't know... create spontaneity and a verte' feel to action?? IT DOESN'T!!!
I can't wait until filmmakers go back to actually thinking out shots and framing them with the skill of photographers who frame scenes and people for photographs.
The Cannibals
Though derivative of those in Raw Meat, they lacked any sort of individualism. Looked the same (the one or two times they weren't in darkness), dressed the same, used the same weapons, killed the same, grunted the same, and ran the same to that fluttering jerky camerawork. And was it me or did the lead cannibal look like Rob Zombie with David Lee Roth make-up from the Eat'm and Smile LP cover??
The Good Points.
Gore
is decent though too often masked in group slaughter scenes by faux found-footage style camera wonkiness that is further laboured by grain.
Acting
It's okay, and the character portrayals satisfactory. In fact, at times some are quite well drawn and tied together in the end (for the main character especially), but alas such character elements are often not heard and not assimilated because the characters spend so much of the film jogging from one underground locale to the next, so what they say on the run tends not to register.
Environments.
Really authentic, oozing with atmosphere.
Action / Killing scenes.
While some are traditional and happen in typical order, not everyone dies when you think they will, or how you think they will.
Pacing
Not breakneck, but it does move at a reasonable clip to keep you watching.
Overall.. worth a viewing not a purchase.
Last edited by Bunshinsaba (2011-07-27 21:35:09)
It's just a pet peeve when folks don't elaborate or justify their exclamations. Nothing wrong with saying a movie is "rubbish", or "amazing" for that matter.... but why not provide a few details, personal thoughts, proof of your opinion, etc...or comparisons as Mistress did. After all, knowing "why" someone holds an certain opinion on a subject, is the foundation of conversation; it's what fuels interest and further discussion and opinion on the topic. My two schillings.
